Joe Henderson
Let’s try this again.
On Monday, bars can open with reduced capacity throughout Florida. It’s the second attempt to let breweries and pubs operate since COVID-19 struck. Hopefully, it will work better than the first aborted attempt in June.
The state was in a hurry to get back to normal (whatever that is now), and it was a mess. Bars closed again just three weeks after reopening after virus cases spiked. The failure of patrons to follow social distancing requirements appeared to be a factor.
But with COVID-19 cases seemingly declining now, Department of Business and Professional Regulation Secretary Halsey Beshears said in a statement, “It’s time that we take this step …”
He had better be right because if he’s wrong, the consequences can be deadly.
Look, many people could use a stiff drink after what we’ve been through. No one questions the economic hardship COVID-19 has wrought on the restaurant and bar industry.
But medical experts – you know, the professionals who study this stuff – warn that another spike in virus cases may be coming soon. Hospitals are gearing up for what could be an exceptionally busy fall and winter.
So, if you really want to support your local saloon, do everyone a favor.
Wear a mask.
Practice social distancing.
Let’s not go through this again.
That said, let’s get on with our weekly exercise of winners and losers in Florida politics.
Winners
Honorable mention: Nikki Fried. Florida’s Agriculture Commissioner had a busy and productive week.
She grabbed a headline – and maybe staked a position for a (cough) possible (wink-wink) run for Governor in 2022. She directed the Office of Agricultural Law Enforcement to limit the use of force and take discrimination seriously.
Officers must try to de-escalate tense situations before using force. And if someone sees possible excessive force, they must report the act.
And the word “inclusion” radiates throughout the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Fried’s edicts include protected status for gender identity and strict social media rules aimed at eliminating racist posts.
“We appreciate that Commissioner Fried, as an elected Cabinet member, is acknowledging this fight, making it a priority, and taking action to make an impact,” said Sen. Bobby Powell, chair of the Florida Legislative Black Caucus
Almost (but not quite) biggest winner: Geraldine Thompson. The state Representative from Windemere scored a big legal victory. She challenged Gov. Ron DeSantis’ choice of Renatha Francis to fill a Court vacancy, and the Florida Supreme Court unanimously agreed with her.
Francis won’t fulfill the requirement of membership in the Florida Bar for ten years. DeSantis appointed her on May 26 after Justice Robert Luck resigned, but she won’t have the mandatory decade in the bar until Sept. 24.
Francis would have been the first Caribbean-American to serve on Florida’s top court.
The biggest winner: Jamie Grant. Regardless of your position on the restoration of felon voting rights, there is no question that Grant won the argument.
He was a leader in the, ahem, “clarification” of what voters intended when they solidly approved Amendment 4 in 2018. The issue was sold to voters as a vehicle to allow felons who served their prison time for non-violent crimes to vote. The Republican-led Legislature erected multiple hurdles over the years to keep that from happening.
But after the amendment passed, Grant and other Republicans studied the issue. They decided that only those who paid all fines and court costs, along with serving their time, can vote.
Supporters of the rights restoration screamed foul, but on Friday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state. The Court agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis after U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in May sided with the challengers.
“If a State may decide that those who commit serious crimes are presumptively unfit for the franchise,” the 11th Circuit ruled, “it may also conclude that those who have completed their sentences are the best candidates for re-enfranchisement.”
The immediate effect is to shut out thousands of Floridians from the November election, and possibly beyond. As if felons don’t have enough trouble re-integrating into society, many have significant debt because of the fines and costs associated with their cases.
Losers
Dishonorable mention: Ashley Moody. Florida’s Attorney General lost one of her pet projects, thanks to a Governor from her own Republican Party. DeSantis vetoed an anti-vaping bill that Moody championed.
The bill, which had bipartisan support, would have banned the sale of nearly all flavored E-cigarette products.
It also raised the state’s smoking age from 18 to 21. Those are noble endeavors, favored by health officials across the continent. However, DeSantis said the legal smoking age under federal law already is 21, and added vaping is a “reduced-risk alternative” to tobacco.
“Reducing the use of all nicotine-related products, including vaping, among our youth is an important goal,” DeSantis said. “But this will not be achieved by eliminating legal products for adults and by devastating the small businesses who provide these adults with reduced-risk alternatives to cigarettes.”
Almost (but not quite) biggest loser: In-person rallies (or, we don’t need no stinkin’ masks). Two things were predictable about President Donald Trump’s rally and flotilla in Jupiter. A) Lots of people attended; B) Nearly everyone seems to have forgotten their masks.
The Palm Beach Post described the scene this way: “On Monday, mask-free spectators lined both sides of the bridge while others spread out along the route, gazing down on the parade.”
Honestly, it baffles the mind why anyone would plant their freedom flag on the maskless hill. Do you morons not read? Has your mind been poisoned by warped warblers of defiance that you don’t understand that COVID-19 CAN KILL YOU???
“Trump wants the anti-mask protester vote, and that vote is not our persuasion target,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler told the Washington Post.
You can’t fix stupid.
The biggest loser: DeSantis. The Governor took a spanking by the Florida Supreme Court, and a loss made doubly painful because he shaped the Court with conservative judges.
Turns out, “conservative” can mean actually following the state Constitution as written.
DeSantis, as noted above, overlooked the requirement that Francis had to be a 10-year member of the Florida Bar. The Court unanimously agreed with the lawsuit from Thompson challenging DeSantis’ backdoor move.
DeSantis argued that the 10-year requirement was a standard, but not mandatory.
The Court’s response: Nope!
“The Governor has not satisfied his legal obligation to fill the vacancy by making a constitutionally valid appointment,” the Court wrote.
And there was this stinging rebuke from the Justices to DeSantis, who often touts himself as a “strict constitutionalist.”
“To some, enforcing rules like these might seem needlessly formalistic when the result is to preclude the appointment of an otherwise qualified candidate,” they wrote.
“But’ formalism,’ as Justice (Antonin) Scalia observed, ‘is what makes a government a government of laws and not of men.'”
Wow, they played the Scalia card – the strictest of strict constitutionalists.
Ouch!
Justices ordered DeSantis to name a new nominee by Monday.
At least the bars will be open then.
2 comments
Sonja Fitch
September 13, 2020 at 6:48 am
Reading ON TYRANNY and it is a a good presentation of us folks now! The goptrump cult leader has lied and lied and lied and still the goptrump cult members do not care! The blue wave folks are still demanding truth and real community standards for all! Vote Blue!
Ian
September 14, 2020 at 9:11 pm
Jamie Grant is not the biggest winner. It’s easy to see the biggest winner is the Florida Constitution, because it withstood dangerous attacks from both the left (activist judge Robert Hinkle’s ruling in the Amendment 4 lawsuit) and the right (the misguided Supreme Court appointment by governor Ron DeSantis).
In the Amendment 4 issue, the 11th Circuit restored sanity to the situation where Hinkle had left nothing but chaos in the wake of his ruling. That’s right — Hinkle caused the chaos, not the Legislature. I would invite everyone to read Hinkle’s final ruling and the 11th Circuit’s appellate opinion. Hinkle’s blatant left-wing bias and activism jump right out at you when you do a comparison, and his ruling would have gutted the Florida Constitution if it had prevailed. People voted for what A4 actually says, not what Hinkle wants it to say.
With the Renatha Francis appointment, DeSantis really stood little chance of prevailing. The SCOFLA got it right. His appointment of Francis very clearly does not hold water. It’s hard to defend the appointment with a straight face. Thank you, SCOFLA, for defending the Florida Constitution.
Additional commentary is needed, based on some excerpts from the article:
From the Article:
[Grant] was a leader in the, ahem, “clarification” of what voters intended when they solidly approved Amendment 4 in 2018. The issue was sold to voters as a vehicle to allow felons who served their prison time for non-violent crimes to vote.
Reality:
Nope, not even close. The bill to enact A4 was not a clarification. It’s a representation of what A4 actually says and how A4’s sponsor told the SCOFLA it was supposed to work. The issue was NOT sold as “a vehicle to allow felons who served their prison time for non-violent crimes to vote.” The language clearly applies only to felons who have completed “all terms” of their sentence (not just prison time). Yes, “all” really does mean all. And, only murderers and sex offenders are excluded. A4 smiles upon felons who’ve committed any other violent crime. This begs the question of this website’s staff (quoting the article here): “Do you morons not read?”
From the Article:
But after the amendment passed, Grant and other Republicans studied the issue. They decided that only those who paid all fines and court costs, along with serving their time, can vote.
Reality:
Republican legislators didn’t have to decide that. A4’s sponsor “sold” it that way to the SCOFLA, in order to get it approved for the ballot. And, that’s also how the ACLU and other civil rights groups told the Secretary of State it was supposed to work, just before the 2019 legislative session started. Reporters conveniently forget all these facts in their haste to impugn Republicans. (Btw, you left out restitution, which is also included in “all.”)
From the Article:
The immediate effect is to shut out thousands of Floridians from the November election, and possibly beyond. As if felons don’t have enough trouble re-integrating into society, many have significant debt because of the fines and costs associated with their cases.
Reality:
The actual effect is to uphold the Florida Constitution as it is written, which reflects the intent of voters when they adopted A4. This reality is borne-out in an article published by this website on Oct 7, 2019, authored by Karen Cyphers. (I would invite readers to look up that article and take it all in.) In terms whether felons are able to pay the financial obligations in their sentences, I must harken back to a SCOFLA justice who approved A4’s language in 2017 and didn’t seem worried about that when she said: “This would actually help the state because if fines, costs, and restitution are a requirement for those that want to vote, there’s a big motivation to pay unpaid costs, fines, and restitution.” She was appointed by Lawton Chiles, btw.
From the Article:
The Governor took a spanking by the Florida Supreme Court, and a loss made doubly painful because he shaped the Court with conservative judges. Turns out, “conservative” can mean actually following the state Constitution as written.
Reality:
That’s all “conservative” is supposed to mean in this context. “Conservative” judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution and the law as they are written. The term was never supposed to mean “conservative” in the political sense. Conservatives want the former from their judges, not the latter. Injecting political philosophy into court rulings is the M.O. of left-wing “liberal” judges who routinely inject their personal political bias into their rulings. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Judge Hinkle.)
Comments are closed.